Wherein Card. Burke is compared to Archbp. Lefebvre

Just in case you were wondering what sort of people were on the other side of the issue, this is a Twitter exchange between the Jesuit James Martin and Massimo Faggioli, a liberal academic in St. Paul:

Card. Burke is compared to the late Archbp. Marcel Lefevbre. They invoke “schism”.

Schism?

Will they next say that St. John Paul II was a Lefebvrite?

St. John Paul issued Familiaris consortio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and everything that Card. Burke has said can be found in both.

For a liberal, Lefebvre is the equivalent of the bogeyman, Hannibal at the gates, the monster under the bed.

If “ideologue” is now liberal code for “faithful”, I suppose that “schismatic” is now their code for “believer in the Magisterium”.

I hope that these guys have a fainting couch.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

58 Responses to Wherein Card. Burke is compared to Archbp. Lefebvre

  1. Robbie says:

    Fr. James Martin is essentially the chaplain of MSNBC, often appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show. That’s all I need to know about him.

  2. Fr. Matthew says:

    This post-snyod time is not about “getting more votes,” or which side is stronger, it’s about the most difficult thing of all: Praying that the Holy Spirit will change minds and hearts so the greatness of the Catholic Magisterium can shine forth. Politics in the Catholic Church never wins, but Christ does. We need to storm heaven on this one.

  3. robtbrown says:

    This is an obvious case of Fr Martin whining and distorting the truth. Did he just happen to forget what the likes of Cdls Pell, Mueller, and Napier said.

    Fr Martin is yet another example of why the Jesuits in the West are going down the drain. They are out of touch, still living in the 1970’s.

  4. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    I don’t use twitter or other similar services, but I’d like to propose a comparison between Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke and St. Athanasius.

    In the “for what it’s worth” category, comparing Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Burke RAISES my esteem for the archbishop.

    I don’t remember the source, but probably more than one French wag has said “The Archbishop of Paris should, at least, believe in God”.

  5. iteadthomam says:

    Burke cannot be likened to a schismatic since he has not broken communion with the church nor has he called upon others to do so. If anyone can be likened to a schismatic it would be those who wish to break with the 2000 year old faith and practice of the Church. Just saying.

  6. aviva meriam says:

    I’m amazed by something……
    The left postures (or attempts to position itself) as the intellectuals in any discussion.

    WHY are they so Afraid of H.E. Cardinal Burke? The constant ad hominem attacks against Cardinal Burke only lead credence to the notion they KNOW they cannot win the argument and therefore are engaging in the tactic of last resort…

    It would be entertaining to watch if it wasn’t so serious.
    Wow do we need to pray for our Church.

  7. e.davison49 says:

    It’s all LGBT all the time over at Fr. Martin’s twitter feed.

  8. LeeF says:

    Maybe the libs will put scare-Burkes in the their fields, and scare their kids with Card. Burke stories.

    This whole matter is going to have a lot of time to marinate apparently, as in a year past next year’s Synod. So a couple more years of liberals spinning and distorting, and a couple more years for us to pray hard. After which hopefully, and probably likely, not much happens except for cosmetic changes to the annulment process and an encyclical that changes no doctrine.

    Despite Father’s comments in the post on the Holy Father’s final address, and even it does use terminology a little too critical of one side of the spectrum, it actually is a pretty good speech that addresses the perils of the extremes at both ends. Pope Francis is said to want to steer a middle course. And while we rightly dread even a small possibility of changes in the wrong direction away from sound doctrine and canonical practice, any middle course is likely a lot closer to what we around here believe than what they believe and hope for over at Fishwrap. That see any middle courses as only a first step in getting it all, 100% approval for that which God does not approve. Which is not going to happen in the long run, despite what may in the short run.

    Just as Father exhorts those who attend the EF to be involved in the parish and be the first to volunteer, we should strive to be first in mercy, in the right way. Pray for those who have separated themselves from the Church, invite them to our homes and occasionally even to Mass (without receiving communion), and to read the Bible and Catechism. In other words, keeps the lines of communication open. This is what Pope Francis seems to want, i.e. allowing people to know they are welcome to come back, but knowing that repentance is necessary to receive the Mercy and forgiveness that God has already given in advance. And remind the liberals of last week’s OF gospel, of those invited to the wedding, and the man who showed up with no wedding garment, and the admonition that many are invited but few chosen. The libs will distort that and say all are chosen to do x, y and z good works, etc, etc, and thus are already full members, but we just have to keep putting the truth out there and let God bring it to fruition.

  9. majuscule says:

    Cardinal Burke asked that we pray the Chaplet of the Holy Face for the synod.

    Why don’t we continue to do so, at least until the synod next year.

    Here’s a link to a blog post about it.

  10. Kathleen10 says:

    The one thing this Synod did that is positive (maybe) is open our eyes and the eyes of the world to the reality in our church. Some of that truth would be horrifying, should we not have the promise of Christ about the gates of Hell.

  11. John Grammaticus says:

    I second Chris Garton-Zavesky, If I were His Emminece I would be very flattered if I was compared to Lefebvre .

    On a more serious note I just don’t get Fr. James and his ilk, I mean these people by the virtue of the Graces they have been given SUPPOSED to be amongst the holiest of us (which his Eminence is managing without the Graces of Religious Life), why oh why do they to whom the Sacred Heart has given much, treat him with such contempt?

    I KNOW that his Eminence is very much devoted to the Sacred Heart because my Godparents wrote an Icon of the Sacred Heart for him when he was Bishop of Lacrosse.

  12. StJude says:

    Fr Martin wrote a piece on the Synod in which he said this: “those topics—LGBT issues and the reception of Communion for divorce and remarried Catholics—will be discussed at the next session of the Synod. Second, that the church will know that these votes, both of which he himself (Pope) has addressed, were close. This may give encouragement to those in favor of more openness on these issues to rally support and fight more vigorously next time.”

  13. incredulous says:

    WHY are they so Afraid of H.E. Cardinal Burke? The constant ad hominem attacks against Cardinal Burke only lead credence to the notion they KNOW they cannot win the argument and therefore are engaging in the tactic of last resort…

    It’s just the way of the leftists/progressives. They can’t win an argument based on facts and fair debate. So, they do everything nefarious that’s been on display in the past week or so including the character assignation of Cardinal Burke, the attempted character assignation of Edward Pentin even though he had Kasper’s anti-African recorded statement which Kasper denied making, the wholesale ignoring of what the Synod said and really producing a summary that is a total lie, etc., etc.

    I am very depressed to find the same secular warfare that’s been going on since the 60s has the same leftists/progressives trying to destroy the Bride of Christ too. We are the last bulwark against their homosexuality and they want us gone.

    This is coming from an archdiocese which saw the AB removed by the prior Pope an an attempt to get rid of the rampant homosexuality in the clergy here. In the end, our children are made victims by these pedophiles with vastly disordered sexualities.

    ENOUGH.

    [As someone put it, Burke Derangement Syndrome!]

  14. FrAnt says:

    What is happening in the Church is not new. In the past it was emperors and kings who fought the Church when the Church would not follow the ruler’s will. Today it is the people who fight the Church. And we should not be surprised that cardinals and bishops are pushing the world’s agenda. Where have all heresies started, in the clergy and religious, why should we think thing have changed, humans are still flawed and sinful. The Church will prevail whether in this world or in the next.

  15. Mike says:

    We’ve reached an unhappy milestone on the road to the Chastisement when dissent from heterodoxy becomes “schism.” Our Lady, Help of Christians, pray for us!

  16. donato2 says:

    What schism? The synod ultimately reflected remarkable unanimity. Had the Forte/Spadaro/Kasper proposals been endorsed by the Pope over the objections of a majority of bishops, what might have resulted is a challenge to papal authority. A challenge to papal authority in such a circumstance would not automatically result in schism although it would present the risk of schism. What would happen would depend in significant part on the reaction of the Pope to the challenge. My own view is that the Pope recognizes this and that, in doing so, he is genuinely committed to collegiality.

    Something that has not been emphasized is the bishops’ solid endorsement of Humanae Vitae, which Pope Francis also has praised publicly.

  17. Matt R says:

    This was not the only place I had seen someone make the ludicrous assertion that Cardinal Burke was going the way of Archbishop Lefebvre.

  18. mburn16 says:

    The Synod has been quite a rebuke for the liberal wing of the church, which ends up being quite an astonishing fact when you consider that said liberal wing is led by the Pope. This site has speculated whether Pope Francis would follow in the footsteps of his predecessor and resign…I would say the outcome of the Synod makes that far more likely. And I would further speculate that, in “demoting” Cardinal Burke, the Holy Father may well have fingered the most likely candidate for his successor.

    Remember, despite virtually all the cardinals in the 2013 conclave being elevated by a Pope considered a theological, if not liturgical, Conservative…we ended up with Francis. The pendulum seems likely to swing in the other direction next time.

  19. cdet1997 says:

    Martin is a [i’ll cut this out. – Fr. Z People, THINK before posting. Remember… this is not the Fishwrap’s combox.] . He’ll hide behind the security of his twitter feed and gleefully take pot shots at Burke to the delight of his followers. But ask him point-blank if he agrees with eternal Church teaching that homosexual behavior is a grave sin, and he’ll cower and slink off while mumbling some non sequitur about “we’re all sinners!”

    He reminds me of McBrien at Notre Dame. He digs the Roman collar because his unorthodox and wishy-washy views bring him internet high-fives and adulation from the fawning media. Actually preaching divine eternal truth would decimate his flock of twitter followers.

  20. HeatherPA says:

    When I read these kinds of things, I always think to myself, “Why did Fr. —– even become a priest in the first place?”

    It isn’t like it’s something easy to do, or something that “happens” to a man.

    There are so many young men who get turned down who love God and the Church (and her doctrine).

    This thought is alway followed by a cringing question of wondering if these men have ever read the book of Ezekial (among others) and see what God says to His anointed ones who act like this and what He promises their punishment will be.

  21. LeeF says:

    Read the short wiki article on the Council of Rimini:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Rimini

    which contains the famous quote of St. Jerome: The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.

    Even if a plurality of bishops oppose sound doctrine, and even if approved by the pope non ex-cathedra, it can and will be overturned later with the help of the Holy Spirit. We either trust in that or we don’t.

  22. Choirgirl says:

    mburn16:

    And I would further speculate that, in “demoting” Cardinal Burke, the Holy Father may well have fingered the most likely candidate for his successor.

    Ha! I wonder.

    IMO, the reason why our wonderful Cardinal Burke is being exiled to Patmos reassigned to Malta is because Liberal Vaticanistas don’t want him to cause any more trouble in the Vatican, and the liberal American bishops (thems whats got the ear of the Pope) don’t want him to cause any more trouble back home.

    Burke is only 66 – I can hardly wait to see Jesus’ next move. Heh heh

  23. albizzi says:

    Now the concern of Pope Francis is double:
    – How to dismiss Card. Burke from the Apostolic Signatura without making this to look as a sanction for his stance during the Synod, at the tip of the opposition to the modernist agenda?
    – How to keep Card. Kasper who exposed himself as a liar, a racist, an imprudent speaker and a manipulator during the Synod, in his closest circle after the Pope himself had praised him as the number one theologian?

  24. Alanmac says:

    Father Martin, on his popular Facebook page is a very strong advocate for LGBTQ recognition in the Church. His syrupy adulation of this cause always gives me pause.

  25. alanphipps says:

    Just to be clear, it was Massimo Faggioli who compared Burke to Lefebvre, not Fr. James Martin.

  26. Traductora says:

    One of the things that disturbs me most about Pope Francis is that he’s the one who is dividing the Church into two camps – reading his condescending, holier-than-thou address at the ending of the synod was truly alarming. He really does see the Church as being divided into the evil “legalists,” whom he even openly referred to as the “traditionalists” (and, also, oddly enough, as the intellectuals) and then the good people, the progressives, who may sometimes go a little too far in their zeal but are inspired by “the spirit” (of what?) and are motivated by nothing but the best impulses.

    Cdl Burke has clearly become the symbol of all that the Pope doesn’t like, and now it’s going to be open season on Burke. Naturally, all motivated by the best impulses of the really good people.

  27. The Cobbler says:

    Personally, I find this whole situation makes me more sympathetic to the SSPX — not so much because I feel like they have more justification than I thought before, but because I begin to wonder how little I know about whether what they’ve done really was or wasn’t the only reasonable Catholic thing to do at the time.

    I mean, not only was there nothing remotely schismatic going on here because Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis didn’t make a spat out of the disagreement rightly or wrongly being attributed to them, but even if they had made a spat out of it, it’s not schismatic denial of papal authority to stay true to the teaching of the Church even if the Pope were personally against it, now is it? The flipside of infallibility is that the Pope *can’t* just go and change things — not the essential things, that is.

    Anyway, I don’t see why anyone singles out Cardinal Burke after what went down at the synod… I more than a little suspect that the progressives are upset precisely because Burke is not alone and now we all know it!

  28. bposullivan says:

    Aren’t people getting a little too mad at Fr. Martin for just saying “unbelievable” in response that quote that was attributed to Burke? It was Faggioli who compared Burke to a schismatic (and even that came across to me as facetious and hyperbolic, not meant to be taken literally). Did Martin even respond to this?

  29. The Cobbler says:

    P.S. I’m going to point to people judging Cardinal Burke a schismatic next time I hear “Who am I to judge?” 8^)

  30. RJHighland says:

    This isn’t surprising at all from the truly schismatic and heretical side of the Church. That is why it is astounding to me that Fr. Martin is in full normal communion with the Church yet AB Lefebvre and the SSPX are considered to be in quasi communion, the SSPX only practice and teach what was taught in the Church prior to Vatican II. Nothing has been changed, they simply don’t agree on some of the wording in the Vatican II documents and they do not offering the Novus Ordo mass, yet they are the step children in the Church. All these progressives are the ones that should be in questionable communion not a traditional priestly fraternity. ArchB Lefebvre is very much responsible for maintaining orthodoxy in the Church because of his develope of so many orthodox priests without any effeminate characteristics. Cardinal Burke also has done an incredible job of maintaining orthodoxy in the Church and I am sure he has developed priests when he over saw a diocese, so they are similar. The question should be why are there so many hetrodox Cardinals and Bishops in the Church and the Popes have not nearly been as strick on those spreading less than orthodox teaching through-out the Church. If the last several Popes where as strick on Diocesan bishops as they have been on the SSPX, the Church would not be in the position it is today. It is not Bishops like AB Lefebvre that have caused the collapse of the faith, it is because of men like Fr. Martin, Cardinal Kasper (Disciple of Hans Kung), AB Bernardine (Destroyer of the form of the mass in American Catholic Churches), St. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, St. John Paul. We will have to see what Pope Francis legacy will be but I pray he doesn’t take the Church down the path that he lead the Diocese of Buenos Aires. Pope Francis when AB of Buenos Aires was part of the greatest loss of Catholics from the Church to Protestantism. Pope Paul VI and St. John Paul over saw the destruction of the mass, the greatest abuse of young men in Church history and the greatest rise of homosexuality in the priesthood in history and the greatest decline in priestly and monastic vocations. Would these be considered the true fruits of Vatican II? Here we are in 2014 and the main topics of the Synod is acceptance of homosexuality and divorced and remarried Catholics right to recieve communion. I don’t think the problems in the Church have been solved by any of these men, but they have only made them worse. Who fought to restore orthodoxy in the Church men like Pope Benedict XVI, who basically resigned, AB Lefebvre who was excommunicated then unexcommunicated and the bishops he elevated are in some quasi state of communion and Cardinal Burke soon to be over seeing the Knights of Malta. I pray for AB Athenasius Schnieder because he so far hasn’t been hammered by the Vatican but he is a large object on the progressives radar screen. I think history will prove that Benedict XVI, AB Lefebvre, Cardinal Burke, AB Schnieder and Fr. Z are the true saints of this period of history teaching and proclaiming the true faith.

  31. avecrux says:

    A certain Cardinal Ratzinger was treated with as much contempt as Burke when I was younger. Then the Holy Spirit went and made him POPE!

  32. SimonDodd says:

    I think that it helps to realize that the left sincerely believes that we have been living under an ultraconservative reactionary Church since St. John Paul II’s election. They do not see John Paul as a moderate, but as an ultraconservative; they really think that we have been in charge and calling the shots all these years, and would likely characterize John Paul as Newt Gingrich to Lefbvre’s Pat Buchanan. Someone like Cardinal Martini or Kasper is their idea of a moderate. That may be nutty, but when you realize that’s how they think, a lot of their otherwise-incomprehensible drivel snaps into focus. They think that we’ve been driving this train all along and that we’re now getting our comeuppance.

  33. marcelus says:

    Traductora says:
    19 October 2014 at 4:52 pm
    One of the things that disturbs me most about Pope Francis is that he’s the one who is dividing the Church into two camps –

    Sorry but the 2 sides have been around a while.

    WHen choosing the next Pope, do not forger Latam wiill be and important factor from now on and particularly after PF. 50% of the Church resides here. Or around, decreasing.. increasing… but still the mayority. And 5-10 years from now,.who knows how his papacy will be seen. He will leave a mark no doubt. Just as BXVI had a though time reaching out to the Latin countries after the charismatic St. JP2, extremely loved in South America, whoever comes next will have to carry that load.

    Still Crdl Burke HAS to do something about his words on the Pope. He will always have thagt mark upon him unfortunately. I do not know what, But even if some may be proud of that from what I read, the world already has it’s eye on him.

    I doubt very much PF cares about what Burke said against him. Having seen him “forgive” others who have offennded him in Argentina before

    Still, hierarchially, something must happen.

    He was the only Cardinal who dared say the Pope is harming the church and got it out to the world.

    Believe it is all over the world news!

  34. Geoffrey says:

    “In the ‘for what it’s worth’ category, comparing Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Burke RAISES my esteem for the archbishop”.

    “I second Chris Garton-Zavesky, If I were His Emminece I would be very flattered if I was compared to Lefebvre “.

    Really? Who would want to die excommunicated?

  35. greg3064 says:

    @ Traductora

    One of the things that disturbs me most about Pope Francis is that he’s the one who is dividing the Church into two camps – reading his condescending, holier-than-thou address at the ending of the synod was truly alarming.

    This worries me as well. At first I thought it was a pretty fair speech. But as I think about it – it sets up this opposition in the Church between “traditionalists” and “progressives” as inevitable and natural. They both have their flaws – we’re all sinners – but the debate is just a process that we have to get through.

    I don’t know. Spurring debate for the sake of debate is nice and all, but I don’t know how anyone could plan to do this without realizing how it would be interpreted, how the media would be able to run with it however they want, etc. Meanwhile there are Catholics around the world who now believe that the Church’s teachings have changed – whether in terms of doctrine or pastoral practice (pastoral practice is all that really matters to most people as they try to live out Christian lives). That is really serious, and it’s hard to take back. How can academic-like debate be worth that?

    I feel so conflicted here because I try to read the pope’s ambiguities in a positive light. Many faithful Catholics will say that one shouldn’t worry about these things. Sometimes I can’t tell if Pope Francis means to be gaming the media or just really likes doing things that surprise people and make them uncomfortable. If he’s trying to game the media then I’m afraid the media have twisted the Synod the way anyone could have anticipated they would. (I saw one news station quote from his speech; they only quoted the part about the “traditionalists.”)

  36. The schism actually occurred when Church Teaching was getting circumvented. Pope Francis didn’t come up with Card. Kasper’s ideas, Card. Kasper did – on his own. The Faith doesn’t have doctrines we can change on a whim like we change the rules of a hockey game. Pastoral concerns for the family can still be accomplished while still keeping doctrine intact. Pastoral approaches should NEVER circumvent Church Teaching. Period.

  37. Allan S. says:

    I consider the comparison a complement. Think for a moment: where did almost all the ED communities “in full communion” come from? The SSPX. If there were no Abp. L and no SSPX, then there is no FSSP et al – and there is certainly no SP 2007.

    God can do (and does) something we cannot – He writes straight with crooked lines. He has taken the SSPX and from it fashioned a wrecking ball, whose fruits have derailed the heresies and ruptures foisted upon Holy Mother Church from within since the 60s. If (I am not an optimist so I don’t say “when”) the “Spirit of Vatican II” crowd are finally defeated, the seeds of that victory will have been sewn by Abp. L. Cardinal Burke is becoming – through no efforts or desires of his own – the face of the faithful. Benedict XVII.

    So…bring on the crooked lines. And I thank God for the SSPX and Abp. L. every time I have the privilege of attending the TLM. Cardinal Burke is in good company.

  38. jbpolhamus says:

    I truly believe that the Liberals need to collect themselves together and march right into their own church, created with their own hands and minds, [a “work of human hands”?] disowning previous Catholic experience and proceeding according to their own lights and calls. You go, girls! There are plenty of empty churches in Germany and France waiting for you to fill’em right up. Be bold! Be brave! After all, it’s a Brave New Church! Morning has broken! Let that be your marching song! Go fight the fight! Somewhere else. Men of the Church say, “GO!” When are you going?

  39. jbpolhamus says:

    By the way, have you noticed that most of the conversations on Twitter have the same basis in rationality and maturity of notes passed between sixth-graders? It is an utterly pointless, meaningless, and juvenile medium. Utterly meaningless, in that nothing of such little substance and poor reasoning is capable of having lasting impact. Nothing but chaff in the wind.

  40. Grumpy Beggar says:

    It’s times like this I have to confess to being quite thankful that I never joined twitter and that I left facebook about 7 years ago – roughly 3 days after i joined.

    OP : “St. John Paul issued Familiaris consortio and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and everything that Card. Burke has said can be found in both.

    . . . If ‘ideologue’ is now liberal code for ‘ faithful ‘, I suppose that ‘schismatic’ is now their code for ‘believer in the Magisterium’.”

    So maybe, continuing that train of thought, we should humour them a little, and consider a change of title for our ” sure norm for teaching the Catholic faith” . . . ( oops, I guess they mean a “sure norm for teaching the separation of Church and church” ) ? How about the Cateschism of the Catholic Church ?

    Hey , who knows ? . . . It might actually encourage them to finally open it and start reading something.

  41. SimonDodd says:

    marcelus says: “I doubt very much PF cares about what Burke said against him. Having seen him ‘forgive’ others who have offennded him in Argentina before.” Could you give us an example of someone who “offended” Bergoglio and was forgiven for it?

  42. marcelus says:

    SimonDodd says:
    20 October 2014 at 10:59 am
    marcelus says: “I doubt very much PF cares about what Burke said against him. Having seen him ‘forgive’ others who have offennded him in Argentina before.” Could you give us an example of someone who “offended” Bergoglio and was forgiven for it?

    Thank you for your comment.

    For the record,I’m not comparing the Crdl to any of the people I will mention, and it deals with politics :

    The most resonant case I recall is the one of our President…. Crisitina Kircher, who know melts before the Pope, as well as her cabinet members.

    1. First hand: when her husband, Fr President N Kirchner, was seriously Ill (he had 2 attacks I think before he finally passed away) Crdl Bergoglio, , the head of the opposition as Kircher used to call him, when to see him , being Argentina’s Primate and also a man of God, leaving aside their polical differences. He went to visit the couple at Los Arcos hospital, (my wiife happens to work there sometimes and still doctors recall the anecdote. As crdl Bergoglio was exiting the elevator he was met outside Kirchner’s room by his wife who literally told him he was neither welcomed nor neccesary there. The good Cardinal then, turned back and left.

    2. 14 times Crdl Bergoglio asked for an appointment with the president. 14 times he was turned down by the same woman.

    3: When the SSM bill got passed and he made a letter against it public, She came out and called him a “medieval” character.

    4: A few other minor politicians who clashed with PF.

    4:there is also the case, I can not recall the name of the priestm who at the beggining of PF’s pontificate, “corrected ” the Pope publicly on some theological statements he had made. PF came out and publicly praised the priest for doing so. His name escapes my memory.

    It is my understanding the Cardinal”s case is somehow different. Stating harm is being caused by the Pope, must have some sort of consequense I suppose.

    But PF is a forgiving man.

  43. frjim4321 says:

    There was a report that the prelate in question chose to insult the pope by not conveying to him the customary kiss of peace (or other form of greeting) and the closing mass. If this is true, he contributed mightily to the negative impression than many centrists and progressives have of him. [What prelate is that? Lefevbre to Paul VI? I don’t buy it. That’s the sort of stunt liberals pull, not those on the traditional side, who venerate the person of the Roman Pontiff and show him obedience.]

  44. frjim4321 says:

    Yes I understand the link triggered moderation, but as long as our honorable host can see it that’s good enough for now.

  45. JuliB says:

    I think the liberals see themselves as Jesus attacking the Pharisees one minute and turning over tables in the Temple the next. If you listen to how they speak, it’s clear how they view themselves and how they view us.

  46. robtbrown says:

    1. Cardinal Kasper is not a member of the Pope’s closest circle. He wrote a book that was read and endorsed by the pope.

    2. Latin America has about the same number of cardinals as does North America. Each has less that 15% of the total.

    3. Usually, a pope spends a year or so dying, during which time Cardinals communicate with each other slowly over possible successors. When BXVI resigned, he pre-empted this process.

    4. Francis is not a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, a centrist, or a traditionalist. He’s a post Vat II Jesuit who is an Existentialist, preferring chaos to order. He’s fine on doctrine but probably won’t emphasize it. He seems to distrust theology, thinking it to be ideology. Thus, I do not think he’s going to stock the Curia with liberals.

    5. Do not be surprised if during this papacy there is reunion with the SSPX.

  47. Ben Kenobi says:

    “If there were no Abp. L and no SSPX, then there is no FSSP et al – and there is certainly no SP 2007.”

    ABP L had the opportunity to be a voice in the wilderness, to lead his flock. Oh, what could things have been had he simply said, “yes, I believe the Church to be in crisis, but I believe that she will prevail.” He could have been holding up the church instead of trying to tear her apart.

  48. marcelus says:

    robtbrown says:
    20 October 2014 at 8:18 pm

    1. Cardinal Kasper is not a member of the Pope’s closest circle. He wrote a book that was read and endorsed by the pope.

    2. Latin America has about the same number of cardinals as does North America. Each has less that 15% of the total.

    3. Usually, a pope spends a year or so dying, during which time Cardinals communicate with each other slowly over possible successors. When BXVI resigned, he pre-empted this process.

    4. Francis is not a liberal, a progressive, a conservative, a centrist, or a traditionalist. He’s a post Vat II Jesuit who is an Existentialist, preferring chaos to order. He’s fine on doctrine but probably won’t emphasize it. He seems to distrust theology, thinking it to be ideology. Thus, I do not think he’s going to stock the Curia with liberals.

    5. Do not be surprised if during this papacy there is reunion with the SSPX.

    Excellent, Excellent way of summing up PF. Do not think I would say he likes Chaos, but indeed. Hagan lio is a good way of putting it.

  49. marcelus says:

    frjim4321 says:
    20 October 2014 at 3:51 pm
    Was this article:

    http://www.ilmessaggero.it/PRIMOPIANO/VATICANO/sinodo_cardinali_papa_saluto_beatificazione/notizie/965769.shtml

    Yes.. apparently, Burke, Muller and Brandmuller left and did not wait to greet the Pope, However Caffara and DePaolis did, Caffara hugging the Pope with afffection..
    Who knows?

    [I do. This is all B as in B. S as in S. The front row of cardinals greets the Pope at these events. They were not in the front row.]

  50. robtbrown says:

    Ben Kenobi,

    You don’t seem to know much about France. Abp Lefebvre didn’t tear the Church apart. The French bishops did it. When Cardinal Marty took over in Paris, mass attendance was c. 75%. By the time he left, it was less than 20% Abp Lefebvre had nothing to do with that.

  51. Supertradmum says:

    robtbrown, agree with a great possibility of the SSPX coming in under Francis.

  52. The Cobbler says:

    For what it’s worth, here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia counterpart to that Wiki article on Rimini:
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13057b.htm

  53. robtbrown says:

    Supertradmum,

    One of the reasons I say that is the previous requirement that the SSPX accept Vat II. That never made any sense to me–it seemed more legalism than substance. I understand how it works: A document is signed, then photos are taken with the pope and appear in OR And everything is hunky dory.

    Pope Francis doesn’t seem to me someone who thinks much of such empty gestures.

    I have never known anyone who has actually read the documents who has accepted Vatican II–although some give a “company man” endorsement. I know one theology professor in Rome who has said openly that Gaudium et Spes is naive (mild compared to the opinion of a priest friend). Some years ago two Cardinals in interviews, one the reputed Grand Elector of JPII, said that Sacrosanctum Concilium isn’t very good. I could give other examples.

    For that matter, in so far as Trent said there are 7 orders, and the Subdiaconate and Minor Orders were suppressed by Ministeria Quaedam, it seems the people involved in that document didn’t accept Trent.

  54. Uxixu says:

    First impression is that it’s silly to expect the Holy Father to get the kiss of peace from every single Cardinal at the Synod. How long would that take? Second impression is why this wouldn’t be news in other venues, if it was real.

    That said, I’ve always thought the problem with the SSPX is bigger than just submission to the Holy Father, which is relatively easy. They’re not inclined to accept the conditions of the Ecclesia Dei and maintain objections to the interpretation of the Council (while not rejecting it’s validity itself) or the Mass or the Catechism, but that could all be worked out with the formula for Saint John Mary Vianney in Campos, which faced none of those conditions.

    The bigger issue is their scope and so far complete refusal to recognize diocesan boundaries or effectively the authority of the bishops. They would have to be willing to withdraw from the diocese where they have a presence and the local ordinary will not permit them so it makes it a larger problem. They have a presence in well over 100 Chapels, Priories, or Missions in the US alone, which has to be dozens of different bishops in the mix of an agreement.

    The Ecclesia Dei societies use the diocesan bishops for their ordinations and ask permission to enter, keeping it relatively small footprints in individual parishes. SSPX has its own bishops and global operations on a scale much bigger. It’s almost a mini-Church of itself.

  55. Uxixu says:

    Actually, robtbrown, Ministeria Quaedam quite intentionally did not suppress the Minor Orders, likely to avoid conflict with the Canons of Trent. It explicitly says “What up to now were called minor orders are henceforth to be called ministries.” Such an organizational matter is undoubtedly within the power of the Holy Father, The 2nd canon of Session 23 doesn’t specify the number… It’s a shame that the instituted ministries themselves assumed the role as effectively confined to seminary.

    It’s not like tonsure was being conferred or maintained anymore even in the traditional societies, nor were the minor orders themselves being used outside of seminary for at least decades. That said, the full restoration of all the minor orders in the daily life of the parish and cathedral as much as the seminary would only be a good thing in consecrating those in daily and ceremonial roles that will always need doing. Trent 23, XVII explicitly allowed for married clerics, provided they wear the tonsure and cassock, of course.

    [In other news, it is the Code of Canon Law which now applies, not Ministeria quaedam.]

  56. frjim4321 says:

    [I do. This is all B as in B. S as in S. The front row of cardinals greets the Pope at these events. They were not in the front row.] – Our Gracious Host

    Thanks . . . I appreciate this info and will send it off to the person who sent me the link.

    Have a glorious time in Rome.

    Best…

  57. robtbrown says:

    Uxixu says:

    Actually, robtbrown, Ministeria Quaedam quite intentionally did not suppress the Minor Orders, likely to avoid conflict with the Canons of Trent. It explicitly says “What up to now were called minor orders are henceforth to be called ministries.” Such an organizational matter is undoubtedly within the power of the Holy Father, The 2nd canon of Session 23 doesn’t specify the number… It’s a shame that the instituted ministries themselves the role as effectively confined to seminary.

    1. Session 23 lists priest, deacon, subdeacon, acolyte, lector, exorcist, and porter. Does it have to say there are 3 major and 4 minors–or are we allowed to count them?

    2. Of subdiaconate and the minor orders, only acolyte and lector are in current use. Maybe they weren’t suppressed de iure, but they were de facto.

    3. I never mentioned whether the pope had the juridically authority to do it. My point was simply that it indicated a lack of acceptance of the Council of Trent.

    It’s not like tonsure was being conferred or maintained anymore even in the traditional societies, nor were the minor orders themselves being used outside of seminary for at least decades.

    That is incorrect. I was at Fontgombault in 1973, and they stopped wearing the monastic tonsure because of Ministeria Quaedam. It is still used in the FSSP and at La Grande Chartreuse.

    If you’re saying that the practice of tonsure had lapsed, I would say that such a situation indicated the need for reform. Also: It is a mistake to assume that parish life is somehow indicative of what goes on in the Church. In religious communities before the Jesuits the subdiaconate and minor orders were actually functional (also the tonsure). The same is true where cathedral canons still existed. Jesuits and similar institutes, however, never had any sort of liturgical life, and the subdiaconate and minor orders had little or no function.

    I don’t know of a time when celibacy was ever associated with minor orders. In fact, Abelard was in minor orders when he met Heloise; he could have married her (and wanted to). She refused because it would ruin his academic career.